How to become a dynasty....

[T Park]

has there ever been a time where a single post crashed a server?

This could be one of those times.....

[Pistons < Spurs]

[ShoogarBear]

has there ever been a time where a single post crashed a server?

This could be one of those times.....

JamStone just bumped SequSpur out of my sig.

[CubanMustGo]

Whottt,

Perhaps even though you are a Spurs fan, you may not know of a player named DAVID ROBINSON.

SET PARM CLASSIC_THREAD.STATUS=yes;

[1Parker1]

Awaiting, 3 page response by Whott...

[whottt]

Drob might have gotten a late start to his career but...

A.It wasn't due to the fact that he sucked, unlike Wallace.

B.His career started at 24.

C. I wouldn't call Drob's career long...14 years isn't a long time when compared to the careers of many of his contemporaries,and other great C's who started playing younger(and thus had many more miles on them) ...Like Olajuwon, Ewing, Jabbar, Parish etc.

D. It's almost too perfect that Drob was the name you came up with...

Go look at what Drob did the season(and therafter) he was 31 years old. Hint: it was the 96-97 season.


E. I see nothing to prove that Drob losing 2 years off his career, in any way, shape or form, contributed to him having a longer career than he would have had otherwise...in fact, the only thing I see that losing 2 years off his career did was hurt his career numbers so that he is largely regarded as a lesser player than some of his positional peers.


F. Ever hear Emmitt Smith's quote about why he was able to have such a long career?

"I may have lost a step, but I had a step to lose".

Therein lies the reason why exceptionally great players are capable of playing longer than other players...Exceptionally great meaning, they didn't suck for the first 4 years of their career.

Ben Wallace is a one dimensional player, whose late starting star career was built on hard work, not talent...this is why he sucked his first 4 years in the league, as opposed to Drob who was able to throw his hat in the MVP candidate ring from the first day he stepped on the court, after sitting for 2 years...


You could make David Robinson half the player he was(and he was after the age of 31, exactly) and he'd still be an extremely good player...

Or to put it another way, David Robinson did not have a longer career due to less miles his first years in the NBA or a late start to his career...

Even still...David Robinson had a step to lose...

Does Wallace?

[JamStone]

You should run a search on whottt's other posts.

Whottt's vehement, articulate, and accurate defenses of David Robinson against any and all criticism are the stuff of legend. I doubt that any poster on this board knows more about David Robinson's NBA career than whottt.

I suspect that you're about to find out just how much whottt knows about the Admiral -- and in no uncertain terms. Proverbially, you've awakend the hornet's nest.

Indeed I did not know that. Interesting to read that he is such a staunch defender of David Robinson and yet made this comment:

"As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

[whottt]

In David's "advanced" years of 36-37(which is actually a pretty common age for most players to play until) he was about 1/5th of the player he was in his prime and he had a back injury left him with little or no feeling in his legs at times and which also caused him to miss large chunks of the season......


Now that might still leave him looking pretty good when being compared to Ben Wallace(or fans of Ben Wallace's team)...but make Ben Wallace 1/5th of the player he was in his prime and um...No thanks.

[JamStone]

Drob might have gotten a late start to his career but...

A.It wasn't due to the fact that he sucked, unlike Wallace.

You are the one who brought up the notion that Ben Wallace sucked until he was 25. And, when you posed your question, it wasn't about what player sucked and started their career later. It was as I'll quote verbatim:

"As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career. "

It was to question where a player got a late start to his career. Nothing in that quote asked about sucking before starting their career late. Keep playing yourself.

B.His career started at 24.

24 years of age is still a late start for an NBA player. Most players start at age 21-22. And, you cannnot refute that whatsoever. In fact, you are the one who considered 25 getting to a late start in ia career, yet 24 is so much younger? Please, enough with semantical and nit-picking arguments. Be better than that.

C. I wouldn't call Drob's career long...14 years isn't a long time when compared to the careers of many of his contemporaries who started playing(and thus had many more miles on them) and other great C's...Like Olajuwon, Ewing, Jabbar, Parish etc.

You're criticizing Ben's age at 31 years old, but 38 is fine by you for David Robinson. Now you are really not making sense. David Robinson still put up decent numbers at 36 years of age. Ben is 31. Like Robinson, Ben is a work out fanatic who keeps his body in top condition. If Ben could put up numbers at 35-36, he would merit a 5 year contract.

D. It's almost too perfect that Drob was the name you came up with...

Go look at what Drob did the season(and therafter) he was 31 years old. Hint: it was the 96-97 season.

It's almost too perfect that you would mention the season David Robinson had a season ending injury and played only six games.

How about the following season when David Robinson put up 22 ppg and 11 rpg at age 32? Not good enough for you? Age 31 is bad. Is that your argument? Goodness, that's not very strong at all. How about age 33? 16 ppg, 10 rpg. Starting to decline, but any team would take those numbers from their starting center, especially when they have a young stud power forward starting to pick up the slack at both ends. Ages 34, 35, 36, still playing 78 games or more each of those seasons. Still giving at least 29 minutes a game. Still taking down at least 8 rpg. All with a superstar power forward in the frontline with him. Every bit worth whatever money he was making at the age of 36.

E. I see nothing to prove that Drob losing 2 years off his career in any way, shape or form, contributed to him having a longer career than he would have had otherwise...in fact, the only thing I see that losing 2 years of his career did was hurt his career numbers so that he is largely regarded as a lesser player than some of positional peers.

That is purely subjective. I believe it helped. You believe it didn't. Can't be proven either way. But, you were the one who didn't even know that David Robinson started his career late. All you did was state (and do I really have to quote it again?):

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Either you didn't know or you didn't think David Robinson played well when he was 35-36.

F. Ever hear Emmitt Smith's quote about why he was able to have such a long career?

"I may have lost a step, but I had a step to lose".

Therein lies the reason why exceptionally great players are capable of playing longer than other players...Exceptionally great meaning, they didn't suck for the first 4 years of their career.

Therein lies your lack of understanding. These statements are purely hate-driven. First of all, it is your opinion that Ben Wallace sucked his first four years in the league. It is my contention that Ben Wallace did not get his chance to play quality minutes his first four years in the league. The fact that he is a perennial all-star, a three time DPOY, and an NBA champion speaks volumes as to the fact that he really did not suck those first four years, but he wasn't appreciated or given the time to show what he was fully capable of. It might be an overused analogy, but look at Jermaine O'Neal's statistics in his first four years in the league. Come on, dude. Fine, hate Ben Wallace. But, get a better argument.

Ben Wallace is a one dimensional player, whose late starting star career was built on hard work, not talent...this is why he sucked his first 4 years in the league, as opposed to Drob who was able to throw his hat in the MVP candidate ring from the first day he stepped on the court, after sitting for 2 years...

You could make David Robinson half the player he was(and he was after the age of 31, exactly) and he'd still be an extremely good player...

Or to put it another way, David Robinson did not have a longer career due to less miles his first years in the NBA or a late start to his career...

Even still...David Robinson had a step to lose...

Does Wallace?

First of all, I never was comparing Ben Wallace to David Robinson. I merely answered your naive and uninformed conclusion that there are no other players that had a late start play well late in their career. David Robinson is a hall of famer. Ben Wallace is a very good, and yes one-dimensional player. I never compared the two except for what you were asking. Get a clue. It was you who didn't know.

You make an awful lot of assumptions about Ben Wallace. Yes, it took a lot of hard work to get where he is today. But, if you think there is no talent or skill at being able to read offenses, slip picks, play great team defense, knowing when to sag and when to hold ground, to be able to anticipate to get steals, to have the footwork and strength to play Shaquille O'Neal one-on-one, then you're one the most ultimate haters. Ben has a very poor offensive game. David Robinson had one of the worst offensive post games for a hall of fame 7-footer in the history of the league. That doesn't take away from his greatness.

It is even arguable that Ben Wallace has already lost a step. And, yet he's still top 5 in rebounds, he still is among the top big men in steals. He still gets his share of blocks. He is still in the running for DPOY. And, he still anchors the defense of one of the best teams in the league. Which means, Ben is also getting smarter as he gets older. Your theory that David Robinson's greatness allowed him to play longer is absolutely pompous and arrogant. Players play longer because they are great AND they work harder than the average player. Ben Wallace is GREAT. He may not have been his first four years, at least to you, but that doesn't mean he's not great now. So, if he's great now, he does have a step to lose.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

I have a feeling this thread will last for weeks... or even months

[whottt]

David Robinson had one of the worst offensive post games for a hall of fame 7-footer in the history of the league. That doesn't take away from his greatness.

I'll be back to answer the rest of that drivel in a bit.

[FreshPrince22]

Ben Wallace has less career minutes on his body than Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Tim Duncan, etc. Sure, the age will be a factor, but the fact that he didn't play much at the beginning of his career will do nothing be help him extend his career. So, he has less wear on him than the typical 31 year old All-Star. Not to mention the kind of shape he keeps himself in. He's the biggest gym rat in the league.

And no, he will be a Piston for life. He's not going to sign with another team for the MLE . He'll get a good sized contract (not max, but close)from the Pistons for 4-5 years, and then he'll retire.

[JamStone]

Let me repost how this discussion got started ... at least this part of the discussion:

Link to some kind of evidence that having a late start to a career will extend it?

As far as I know...none of the guys known for playing well at an advanced age got late starts to their career...in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career.

It's a meaningless point...

I can keep posting this quote again and again if you want. You wrote it. That's what I was responding to. Now, you go tangental so the argument goes in a different direction so as not to reveal that you were proved wrong. That's fine.

Well the only guys I see that played at a high level well late into their 30's...aren't guys who sucked until they were 26.

Whottt is the one who brought the whole "sucking before a player is 26" argument, which is also completely baseless. I never made any mention of Ben sucking until he was 26. I said he didn't really get starter minutes until he was in his fifth season, so there isn't as much wear and tear on him than most 31 year old NBA players. Still a statement that is not refutable.

And I am asking you for some kind of evidence to back that theory up...Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are not examples you can use...they didn't suck until they were 25.

And, as soon as I offer an example that is not Karl Malone or Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Whottt gets his panties all in a bunch because it is the one man he would leave his wife or girlfriend for and bend over every hour on the hour for. Sorry I didn't know that. But, the example fits. You just don't want it to. So, take the argument into a different direction. It's fine.

I don't believe I have ever said I hated anyone or anything during our discourse...I only gave a sarcastic response to someone who nitpicked over a years age and followed that up with a badly made, unprovable, with absolutely no factual basis, point, on why Ben Wallace is immortal.

If you can't admit you were wrong, might as well start a new argument on how Ben Wallace isn't as great as David Robinson. THAT WASN'T THE ARGUMENT!

A player who started his NBA career late and still played well at an advanced age.

Now, you want say 36-37 isn't that old, and most players play until that age. Well, why is 32 years of age such a decline in your opinion then, as you mentioned before?

[whottt]

And, when you posed your question, it wasn't about what player sucked and started their career later. It was as I'll quote verbatim:


It was to question where a player got a late start to his career. Nothing in that quote asked about sucking before starting their career late. Keep playing yourself.

Um ...you yourself said this:

Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league.

You're criticizing Ben's age at 31 years old, but 38 is fine by you for David Robinson. Now you are really not making sense. David Robinson still put up decent numbers at 36 years of age. Ben is 31. Like Robinson, Ben is a work out fanatic who keeps his body in top condition. If Ben could put up numbers at 35-36, he would merit a 5 year contract.

David Robinson was not the player after 31 he was before...It's one thing to do that with David Robinson...it's entirely another to do it with Ben Wallace.

It's almost too perfect that you would mention the season David Robinson had a season ending injury and played only six games.

How about the following season when David Robinson put up 22 ppg and 11 rpg at age 32? Not good enough for you?

One season does not a dynasty make...in fact it didn't.

Age 31 is bad. Is that your argument? Goodness, that's not very strong at all. How about age 33? 16 ppg, 10 rpg. Starting to decline, but any team would take those numbers from their starting center,

Again, one season does not a dynasty make...in fact 2 and 3 seasons does not a dynasty make...

And yes 16 and 10 is pretty good...wake me when Wallace does it...before or after age 30.

That is purely subjective. I believe it helped. You believe it didn't. Can't be proven either way. But, you were the one who didn't even know that David Robinson started his career late. All you did was state (and do I really have to quote it again?):

"I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Either you didn't know or you didn't think David Robinson played well when he was 35-36.

He was a shadow of himself pretty much...which means he could still do a pretty good impression of Ben Wallace in his prime...however Ben Wallace being a shadow of himself is another thing entirely.

Therein lies your lack of understanding. These statements are purely hate-driven.

False...I don't hate Ben Wallace in the slightest...I just don't see him as the cornerstone of a dynasty, for us or any other team, at his current age...Regardless of how badly he sucked his first 4 years in the league.

First of all, it is your opinion that Ben Wallace sucked his first four years in the league. It is my contention that Ben Wallace did not get his chance to play quality minutes his first four years in the league.

And it's my contention that Ben Wallace didn't get quality minutes his first 4 years in the league because he sucked.

The fact that he is a perennial all-star,

In a league where guys get voted in as the starter without even playing a game all season.

a three time DPOY, and an NBA champion speaks volumes as to the fact that he really did not suck those first four years, but he wasn't appreciated or given the time to show what he was fully capable of.

No...it just means he stopped sucking.

It might be an overused analogy, but look at Jermaine O'Neal's statistics in his first four years in the league. Come on, dude. Fine, hate Ben Wallace. But, get a better argument.

Jermaine sucked his first 4 years in the league...

First of all, I never was comparing Ben Wallace to David Robinson. I merely answered your naive and uninformed conclusion that there are no other players that had a late start play well late in their career. David Robinson is a hall of famer. Ben Wallace is a very good, and yes one-dimensional player. I never compared the two except for what you were asking. Get a clue. It was you who didn't know.

Didn't know what?

You make an awful lot of assumptions about Ben Wallace. Yes, it took a lot of hard work to get where he is today. But, if you think there is no talent or skill at being able to read offenses, slip picks, play great team defense, knowing when to sag and when to hold ground, to be able to anticipate to get steals, to have the footwork and strength to play Shaquille O'Neal one-on-one, then you're one the most ultimate haters. Ben has a very poor offensive game. David Robinson had one of the worst offensive post games for a hall of fame 7-footer in the history of the league. That doesn't take away from his greatness.

Whatever...you are outta your ing tree if you think he's deserves a long time high paying contract as anything other than gratuity.

It is even arguable that Ben Wallace has already lost a step. And, yet he's still top 5 in rebounds, he still is among the top big men in steals. He still gets his share of blocks. He is still in the running for DPOY. And, he still anchors the defense of one of the best teams in the league. Which means, Ben is also getting smarter as he gets older.

Well Shaq is getting smarter as he gets older too...but I personally think young and dumb Shaq kicks the living out of the old and smart one...as a player.

Your theory that David Robinson's greatness allowed him to play longer is absolutely pompous and arrogant.

No it's not...it's simply the truth.

Players play longer because they are great AND they work harder than the average player. Ben Wallace is GREAT. He may not have been his first four years, at least to you, but that doesn't mean he's not great now. So, if he's great now, he does have a step to lose.

No, he really doesn't...he'll be a back up in 2 years.

[Extra Stout]

JamStone, let me say I feel sorry for you. I have been utterly owned by whottt before, and I know how it feels. You poor bas .

[picnroll]

JamStone could you slip in somethig about Hakeem. No treatise by whottt on Robinson is complete without a few Olajuwon references.

[whottt]

Point is...

Wallace is being bandied about as a dynastic cornerstone for the next 5 years, at the age of 31.

I say no way, he's too old.

Jamstone says that because he sucked his first 4 years in the league he won't age normally...

I say bull ...

Jamstone cites David Robinson as some kind of evidence, inspite of Drob not having a particularly long career, inspite of Drob being a pale injured shadow of his formerself for about half of his 6 playing years after the age of 31...

Drob started later and thus had fewer miles on him than many other HOF C's...yet his career was not longer than theirs, he did not play to a later age than them, and he was not substantially more effective than them at the same age...a point Jamstone seems woefully unaware of...


Wallace is a poorman's Dikembe Mutombo without the size and talent...he's not the cornerstone to a dynasty. The fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league in no way cons utes proof that he is going to be anywhere near as effective through his 30's as he was before them, and it's an assinine point...and David Robinson's career damn sure doesn't disprove that notion.


Bruce Bowen would have been a better Spur to mention...Not a guy who suffered a career altering injury at the very age that Wallace is now...

And BTW, I don't hate Wallace, in fact he's one of my favorite players and I would welcome him on this team with open arms...He's better than any C on our team for damn sure...He's just not a name that needs to be thrown around as being the key to a dynasty...and the fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league in no way cons utes some kind of proof he is going to be effective into his mid 30's...and mentioning Drob's name doesn't change that fact.

[JamStone]

Let's go then ...

Um ...you yourself said this:

"Actually, Ben Wallace is 31 years old, about a year and a half older than Tim Duncan. And, Ben Wallace did not get regular starter minutes in the league until the 2000-01 season, so it's more like he's in his 7th or 8th season in the league."

Just because you quote me doesn't mean it makes your point or makes any sense at all. Even in my quote, I never made mention that Ben Wallace sucked before the age of 26. Are all your responses going to have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion???

David Robinson was not the player after 31 he was before...It's one thing to do that with David Robinson...it's entirely another to do it with Ben Wallace.

Hey, dimwit, I was never comparing Ben Wallace to David Robinson. How many times do I have to quote you, dumbass?

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

I used David Robinson as an example because you couldn't think of him when you made that comment. It wasn't about me comparing Ben to D-Rob or even intimating that Ben Wallace is or ever has been the player David Robinson was. You're a ing re .

One season does not a dynasty make...in fact it didn't.

Well, I was never a proponent of the idea that Ben Wallace for one or two years would make another team a dynasty. But, here's a little deductive reasoning for you stemmed from the original post in this thread. If the Spurs have won three NBA les already in 7 years, and then they signed Ben Wallace, and he helped win even just two more over the next 4 years, an organization with 5 championships in about 12 seasons might be classified by some as a dynasty. You, however, narrow-minded as you are, view only Ben Wallace's addition and his hypothetical and prospective future with the Spurs not in totality but in a vac where as the Spurs could only be a dynasty AFTER the acquisition of Ben Wallace, without considering what they have already accomplished. Therein again lies your naivity and lack of comprehensive logic. But, again, I didn't even make the claim of dynasty or support that contention in the original post. My posts have been primarily to indicate that Ben Wallace could be a very fine player well into his mid-30s.

Again, one season does not a dynasty make...in fact 2 and 3 seasons does not a dynasty make...

And yes 16 and 10 is pretty good...wake me when Wallace does it...before or after age 30.

Again, trying to compare Ben Wallace to David Robinson. Why? Ben Wallace will never average 16 ppg in a season, much less 20 ppg. We all know that. Again, a statement just to put down Ben Wallace. Ben gets 12 rebounds a game, nearly 2 steals a game, and 2-3 blocks a game. Instead of whining about Robinson-Wallace comparisons, evaluate Ben on what he does, not what some other player on another team in a different system does. Are you that hard-headed and that boyishly charmed by David Robinson's greatness not to realize you're making an argument that I am not even disagreeing with.

He was a shadow of himself pretty much...which means he could still do a pretty good impression of Ben Wallace in his prime...however Ben Wallace being a shadow of himself is another thing entirely.

Comparisons versus productivity. If Ben is a shadow of himself but still gives whatever team he plays for 30 minutes a game, 10 rebounds a game, 1.75 blocks a game, 1.0 steal per game, it's still beneficial to a team. Even with lesser stats, if Ben helps his team win, just as good. Were any Spurs fans disappointed in David Robinson's statistics in the 2002-2003 season? Of course not. The alternatives were Malik Rose, Kevin Willis, and Tony Massenburg. And, guaranteed they wouldn't have put up the numbers Robinson did. But, Whottt, you insist on making the comparison between Robinson and Wallace. And, I have not and will continue not to do that. That is not even part of my argument. You are mentally re ed for continuing to hammer that point I am not even debating.

False...I don't hate Ben Wallace in the slightest...I just don't see him as the cornerstone of a dynasty, for us or any other team, at his current age...Regardless of how badly he sucked his first 4 years in the league.

I don't see Ben Wallace as a cornerstone of a dynasty for any team either. I never said that he was. You seriously need to go back to school for reading comprehension. But, if he was a "KEY" to a team that was playing to become a dynasty, he could fit in. Ben would not need to be a cornerstone on a team with Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili. You just don't understand any of this debate, as you keep on making points that have nothing to do with what I am arguing.

And it's my contention that Ben Wallace didn't get quality minutes his first 4 years in the league because he sucked.

Fine, a point I won't disagree with. You believe what you believe, and I'll do the same. Enjoy your jerk off to that.

In a league where guys get voted in as the starter without even playing a game all season.

Even though twice he was named by NBA COACHES ... you are becoming more idiotic in your rants.

Whatever...you are outta your ing tree if you think he's deserves a long time high paying contract as anything other than gratuity.

Well, call me an apple in autumn because I just fell out the ing tree. I believe Ben can put up 10 rebounds a game for another 3-4 years. I think he can be a force on defense for another 3-4 years. I think he can be a major key in a championship contending team for 3-4 more years. And, with what Ben Wallace brings and what he's accomplished, he does deserve a high paying contract. I don't think he's a max player at all. I probably won't agree with the contract he'll get. But, tell me he doesn't deserve a contract that is worth more than Carlos Boozer's, Erick Dampier's, Tyson Chandler's. Please ... Ben Wallace is at the very least a $10 million per year player, probably closer to $12 million. You're out of your ing mind if you think otherwise ... or maybe you got hit in the ing head with an apple that dropped out the ing tree.

Well Shaq is getting smarter as he gets older too...but I personally think young and dumb Shaq kicks the living out of the old and smart one...as a player.

1995 Finals ... Hakeem Olajuwan v. Shaquille O'Neal.

Shaq might have been better when he was younger and dumber, but he loses when he was younger and dumber. Are you younger and dumber?

No it's not...it's simply the truth.

Your truth isn't very honest ...

[JamStone]

Point is...

Wallace is being bandied about as a dynastic cornerstone for the next 5 years, at the age of 31.

I say no way, he's too old.

By the way, WHOTTT, YOU, yes YOU were the one who brought up the whole notion of "cornerstone of a dynasty." No one else. I didn't say that. The original post did not say that. So, why do you keep bringing it up when no one is making that contention? No one "bandied" about that claim. The original post said acquiring Ben in free agency could help make the Spurs a dynasty. It did not say that Ben would be the cornerstone. You keep making up stuff. You seem to like that.

Jamstone says that because he sucked his first 4 years in the league he won't age normally...

I say bull ...

Jamstone cites David Robinson as some kind of evidence, inspite of Drob not having a particularly long career, inspite of Drob being a pale injured shadow of his formerself for about half of his 6 playing years after the age of 31...

Drob started later and thus had fewer miles on him than many other HOF C's...yet his career was not longer than theirs, he did not play to a later age than them, and he was not substantially more effective than them at the same age...a point Jamstone seems woefully unaware of...

Changing the subject again ...

First it was playing "at an advanced age" and "played well." Now it's having a "longer career" than other HOF centers and "played more effective at the same age." Do you keep wanting to change the subject and going into tangents?

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Would you like to translate the part that where you ever insinuated that the player had to have LONGER CAREERS and PLAYED BETTER than other hall of fame centers? Woefully, you didn't, Whottt.

That's not what you said, and now that I have responded in kind to effectually call you out, you want to change the subject. You need a woman's group so you can let out your frustrations of not making a good argument. Do you need Oprah's website?

Wallace is a poorman's Dikembe Mutombo without the size and talent...he's not the cornerstone to a dynasty. The fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league in no way cons utes proof that he is going to be anywhere near as effective through his 30's as he was before them, and it's an assinine point...and David Robinson's career damn sure doesn't disprove that notion.

Attention kids: when someone doesn't understand the discussion, we remain patient and try to help them.

No one claimed Ben was a cornerstone to a dynasty, you whottt. You said that. You inferred that. You made that up. Stop claiming someone said that.

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

Using David Robinson as an example RESPONDS to this quote. It's your ing quote. No mention of sucking before the age of 26. No mention of comparisons to hall of fame centers. No mention about the actual length of the career.

PLAYED WELL AT AN ADVANCED AGE .

GOT A LATE START TO HIS CAREER.

Are you this ing stupid??

Bruce Bowen would have been a better Spur to mention...Not a guy who suffered a career altering injury at the very age that Wallace is now...

And BTW, I don't hate Wallace, in fact he's one of my favorite players and I would welcome him on this team with open arms...He's better than any C on our team for damn sure...He's just not a name that needs to be thrown around as being the key to a dynasty...and the fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league in no way cons utes some kind of proof he is going to be effective into his mid 30's...and mentioning Drob's name doesn't change that fact.

Role players can be keys to dynasties. Kevin McHale was a key to Boston's dynasty. Steve Kerr was a key to the Jordan Bulls dynasty. Tommy Heinsohn was a key to the Bill Russell Celtics dynasty. Robert Horry was a key to the Lakers three peat. Adam Vinateiri was a key to the Patriots so-called dynasty. You don't have to be "cornerstone" or superstar to be a key to a dynasty.

Saying that Ben Wallace didn't play the long minutes in his first four years in the league says he doesn't have the wear and tear of the average 31 year old NBA player who has. That's all. And, it doesn't guarantee it, but it sure proves favorable for his body to keep up into the mid-30s to afford him the opportunity to be effect at an older age.

And, mentioning David Robinson's name was to merely respond to your quote. I'll do it again:

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

You wrote it. That's why I mentioned David Robinson's name. Not to compare him to Ben Wallace. But, because it speaks directly to that quote. And, he was a San Antonio Spur that you should have thought of before making that statement.

[whottt]

Let's go then ...





Just because you quote me doesn't mean it makes your point or makes any sense at all. Even in my quote, I never made mention that Ben Wallace sucked before the age of 26. Are all your responses going to have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion???

Yeah..you called his sucking, "due to limited minutes".

"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."

I used David Robinson as an example because you couldn't think of him when you made that comment.

Either that...or I was actually watching those games. Drob was broken at the advanced age of which you speak.

Well, I was never a proponent of the idea that Ben Wallace for one or two years would make another team a dynasty. But, here's a little deductive reasoning for you stemmed from the original post in this thread. If the Spurs have won three NBA les already in 7 years, and then they signed Ben Wallace, and he helped win even just two more over the next 4 years, an organization with 5 championships in about 12 seasons might be classified by some as a dynasty. You, however, narrow-minded as you are, view only Ben Wallace's addition and his hypothetical and prospective future with the Spurs not in totality but in a vac where as the Spurs could only be a dynasty AFTER the acquisition of Ben Wallace, without considering what they have already accomplished. Therein again lies your naivity and lack of comprehensive logic. But, again, I didn't even make the claim of dynasty or support that contention in the original post.

Well if you look at the original post in this thread, the poster is talking about winning 7-8 les in a 12 year period, and that signing Ben Wallace for the next 5 years is the key to doing it...

Well to me, since we have 3 les now...he is talking about winning 4 or 5 les in the next 5 years, and I in no way think paying Ben Wallace 9-10 million a year at the age of 31 and beyond, will help us achieve that goal.

My posts have been primarily to indicate that Ben Wallace could be a very fine player well into his mid-30s.

Ben Wallace just might very well be a very fine player into his mid 30's...but the fact that he sucked his first 4 years in the league will have nothing to do with it...and in all likelyhood Ben Wallace's best days are far far behind him...and when you are taliking about an undersized one dimensional guy...I just don't agree with you.

Instead of whining about Robinson-Wallace comparisons, evaluate Ben on what he does, not what some other player on another team in a different system does. Are you that hard-headed and that boyishly charmed by David Robinson's greatness not to realize you're making an argument that I am not even disagreeing with.

Are you so hardheaded that you still don't realize that citing David Robinson's name in no way corrborates your theory that, because Ben Wallace sucked his first 4 years in the NBA he is going to be a great old player?

I don't see Ben Wallace as a cornerstone of a dynasty for any team either. I never said that he was. You seriously need to go back to school for reading comprehension. But, if he was a "KEY" to a team that was playing to become a dynasty, he could fit in. Ben would not need to be a cornerstone on a team with Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili. You just don't understand any of this debate, as you keep on making points that have nothing to do with what I am arguing.

Ben Wallace isn't going to be the cornerstone for if he is making 9-10 million a year for the next 5 years....

But, tell me he doesn't deserve a contract that is worth more than Carlos Boozer's, Erick Dampier's, Tyson Chandler's.

He doesn't deserve it...he's too old to deserve it.

Please ... Ben Wallace is at the very least a $10 million per year player, probably closer to $12 million. You're out of your ing mind if you think otherwise ... or maybe you got hit in the ing head with an apple that dropped out the ing tree.

Go ahead and sign him to it...

1995 Finals ... Hakeem Olajuwan v. Shaquille O'Neal.

Shaq might have been better when he was younger and dumber, but he loses when he was younger and dumber.

Yeah....because Hakeem got too old and too smart to beat him anymore...

[Warlord23]

Hmm... JamStone is giving whottt a run for his money

edit: pass the popcorn, folks.

[JamStone]

Are you so hardheaded that you still don't realize that citing David Robinson's name in no way corrborates your theory that, because Ben Wallace sucked his first 4 years in the NBA he is going to be a great old player?

Honestly, how many more times?


"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."


I cited David Robinson's name because it directly responds to this quote. Forget the fact that you think Ben Wallace sucked his first 4 years in the NBA. David Robinson's name was specifically brought up because of the above quote.

That's why I mentioned David Robinson.

Can you get off of the David Robinson-Ben Wallace comparison already? Why the can't you follow?

It's not because Ben Wallace sucked for 4 years. It's because he didn't log the heavy minutes his first four years that he has a better chance at playing longer than the average player. It's not an exact science. And, some players who came out of high school might play well into their mid-30s. That's not my point. My point, as it was from the very beginning, was that Ben Wallace's body doesn't have the wear and tear or the mileage of the average 31 year old NBA player. Shall I say it another way? While you think 32 years old is old for the NBA, I think 10 years in the league is getting old in the NBA. But, if you start at an older age, say 24-25, you don't hit that 10th season until you are 34-35. Follow math, do you?

I could give you a few other examples of players who started later, but you are just so enamored by the fact that I mentioned David Robinson, and you can't seem to pull yourself off his enough to address the actual discussion.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Cause I was thinkin', it really don't matter if I lose this fight. It really don't matter if this guy opens my head, either. 'Cause all I wanna do is go the distance. Nobody's ever gone the distance, and if I can go that distance, you see, and that bell rings and I'm still standin', I'm gonna know for the first time in my life, see, that I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood.

[whottt]

Um, Jamstone is definitely giving me the runs....and that's about it.

1.Jamstone is too stupid to figure out why I keep saying Ben Wallace got a late start to his career, even though he himself said as much in the first place...Jamstone is obviously too ing stupid to read his own posts...

2. Jamstone seems to ing think that sucking your first 4 years in the league will lead to a longer playing career...Jamstone, for some reason keeps citing David Robinson as proof of this...I have no idea ing why.

Drob didn't have a long playing career...unless 14 years is considered a long career for HOF'er. It's a shorter career than just about any HOF C I can think of...Walton and Wilt maybe the only other two.

Drob retired at the age of 37, is 37 considered an advanced age for a HOF'er? Those 2 years he didn't play didn't keep him playing longer agewise than Hakeem, or Ewing, or Shaq, or any of them I can ing think of...

He retired at a younger age then just about all of them.

Drob's last 2 years in the NBA were injury filled struggles...

Drob was not even close to being the same player after the age of 31 that he was before, he didn't have 5 good years after 31.


I am still waiting for Jamstone to pull his head out of his ass, read his own posts, and make his first valid point.

[whottt]

Honestly, how many more times?


"in fact, I can't think of a single guy who played well at an advanced age that got a late start to his career."


I cited David Robinson's name because it directly responds to this quote. Forget the fact that you think Ben Wallace sucked his first 4 years in the NBA. David Robinson's name was specifically brought up because of the above quote.

And that quote was in response to your claim that sucking your first 4 years in the league can lead to a longer playing career.

That's why I mentioned David Robinson.

And severely kicking your own ass in doing so...in no way backing up the point you were trying to make or disproving the point you think I was trying to make.

It's not because Ben Wallace sucked for 4 years. It's because he didn't log the heavy minutes his first four years that he has a better chance at playing longer than the average player.

Right...he sucked his first 4 years in the league so you think he's Mathusela and David Robinson proves this to you....Crackhead.

It's not an exact science.

Damn right it's not...it's pulling something completely out of your ass and totally failing to back it up...

And, some players who came out of high school might play well into their mid-30s. That's not my point. My point, as it was from the very beginning, was that Ben Wallace's body doesn't have the wear and tear or the mileage of the average 31 year old NBA player. Shall I say it another way? While you think 32 years old is old for the NBA, I think 10 years in the league is getting old in the NBA. But, if you start at an older age, say 24-25, you don't hit that 10th season until you are 34-35. Follow math, do you?

Name a player to back that up can you?